[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-8315?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16837303#comment-16837303
]
John Roesler commented on KAFKA-8315:
-------------------------------------
Ah, yes. My apologies. I was mistaken about the PartitionGroup logic. I think
you're right, and actually, [~ableegoldman] has filed
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-8347, so I guess she agrees, too.
I think it's actually a pretty straightforward change, and I actually don't
think it needs a KIP either. Should we try to get this change in for the 15 May
feature freeze for 2.3?
Since you've taken the time to get familiar with the code, do you want to send
a PR, [~the4thamigo_uk]? Offhand, I think we can just redefine
RecordQueue.timestamp() to be the head timestamp instead of the high water-mark
time. And, of course write/update the relevant tests.
> Cannot pass Materialized into a join operation - hence cant set retention
> period independent of grace
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-8315
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-8315
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: streams
> Reporter: Andrew
> Assignee: John Roesler
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: code.java
>
>
> The documentation says to use `Materialized` not `JoinWindows.until()`
> ([https://kafka.apache.org/22/javadoc/org/apache/kafka/streams/kstream/JoinWindows.html#until-long-]),
> but there is no where to pass a `Materialized` instance to the join
> operation, only to the group operation is supported it seems.
>
> Slack conversation here :
> [https://confluentcommunity.slack.com/archives/C48AHTCUQ/p1556799561287300]
> [Additional]
> From what I understand, the retention period should be independent of the
> grace period, so I think this is more than a documentation fix (see comments
> below)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
